MS. PERINO: I have two announcements, and then I'll take
questions. It has been 65 days since the President requested emergency
funding for our troops. Our military leaders have said they need this
funding by mid-April to avoid significant disruptions and hardships.
Yet the Senate's Majority Leader insists that they will be fine until
June, and yesterday said the urgency is only in the President's head.

As the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote to Congress last week, without
approval of the supplemental funds in April the Armed Services will be
forced to take increasingly disruptive measures in order to sustain
combat operations. The impacts on readiness and quality of life could
be profound.

Senator Reid should explain why he disagrees with our nation's
commanding officers about when they need the funding, or he should stop
delaying it.

Also, today the Senate -- we talked a little bit about it yesterday
-- is considering two pieces of legislation that support -- that propose
to support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The first
bill, S5, is very similar to the legislation that the President vetoed
last year. This legislation crosses a moral line that would use
taxpayer dollars to destroy human embryos. And that's a moral line the
President said he would not cross, and for those reasons he would veto
this bill, as well.

In addition, there's a second bill, S30; it supports the use and
further development of stem cell research, but without harming or
destroying embryos. This is a bill that the President strongly supports
and he would sign it should it make it to his desk.

With that, I'll take your questions.

Q Has the President directed Secretary Gonzales to comply with
the -- or Attorney General Gonzales to comply with the congressional
subpoena for more documents, or has he told him to compromise, say no?
Where does that stand?

MS. PERINO: I have not -- I haven't talked to the President about
the subpoena issue. I know that the President, early on, at the
beginning of this, asked the Justice Department to be fully responsive
to the Congress in terms of its specific requests that it had. But as
far as yesterday's subpoena, I have not spoken to the President about
that.

I do believe the Justice Department has released, I think, 3,400
pages of documents, and that the Justice Department has endeavored to be
as helpful as they possibly can. There were some concerns, given
privacy issues, with some of the documents that were requested yesterday
-- concerns expressed by the Justice Department.

Q So does that -- where does it stand? I mean, there's a
subpoena out there.

MS. PERINO: I'd have to refer you to the Department of Justice. I
don't know what they've decided.

Q Is the White House -- anyone in the White House helping
Gonzales prepare for his testimony next week?

MS. PERINO: Not the I'm aware. You mean somebody being over there
at the department?

Q Yes. Sure.

MS. PERINO: Of course, we're in close contact with the Justice
Department, but I don't know of any White House official who's been at
the Justice Department in preparation for testimony.

Q No White House involvement?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of.

Q There have been all these stories about the so-called "murder
boards" that he's undergone in preparation for the testimony --

MS. PERINO: That's not unusual.

Q I know, of course not. But has the White House taken no part
in this?

MS. PERINO: I know that we are aware of it. I'm just saying that
I don't know of any one person, individually, at the White House who has
attended any of those. It's not unusual for an agency to set up
sessions like that prior to a hearing.

Q I know, but I'm curious --

MS. PERINO: But the White House doesn't always send somebody to
handle those. Maybe one thing that you're thinking about is when we're
heading for a confirmation for an individual, we often hold those here
at the White House in order to prepare, but that's because that person
is not yet at an agency where they have a staff.

Q So there has been no White House involvement?

MS. PERINO: Well, again, we're working closely -- I'm just aware
of no individual who is there helping prepare for the testimony.

Q Has direction been given to the Attorney General to prepare
for this?

MS. PERINO: Not specifically, that I know of. I know that it's an
important hearing. I think that they have been as responsive as
possible, leading up to next Tuesday. And, of course, the Attorney
General is a person of incredible integrity, and as long as he can go up
there and have his day and talk to the members of Congress -- and he
asked for this day to come earlier; that wasn't able to work out, so
we'll wait until Tuesday.

Q So he still has his job?

MS. PERINO: He certainly does.

Q Does the President believe that someone of a significant
public stature needs to come to this administration to assist in
overseeing how the war is managed?

MS. PERINO: You're referring to a story in The Washington Post
that talked about a possible reorganization within the National Security
Council. That is something that is under consideration. It would be a
little bit like putting the cart before the horse if we were to say that
that is a done deal, because no one has been offered the job. We've
been consulting widely to find out what people think about the
possibility of having somebody of a higher caliber -- I'm sorry, of a
higher profile come in and have that position. We are talking to
people; there have been no decisions made.

And so I think that now that we're in this implementation phase,
after the two major reviews were done for Iraq and Afghanistan -- and
led very ably by Meghan O'Sullivan, who has been Deputy National
Security Advisor for Stephen Hadley -- that now is an appropriate time,
since she has told us that she's going to be moving on, after six years
of public service -- that any organization would take a moment to figure
out, since Iraq and Afghanistan are such -- is the number one priority
for this administration and for this nation, since we have over 150,000
service members over there, that it's an appropriate time to consider
whether or not we need to think about restructuring the office and
seeing how we can make it be the most effective and efficient.

Q Was this an idea generated by the Secretary of Defense? Did
it come from the President, himself?

MS. PERINO: I'm not sure exactly where it came from, because I
think that there have been -- as we've talked with people outside of the
administration, both in civilian life and in the military, have
considered this to be an option that we might want to pursue. I don't
know where it generated initially for the original idea, but it's one
that we are considering. And we're weighing the options to see about
whether or not we would explore restructuring the office to make sure it
is working well to implement the policies that we have for this
administration.

At the National Security Council, they have the responsibility of
coordinating with the agencies to make sure that the policies are being
implemented. With this being the number one priority, it's only natural
that at this time we would make those considerations. But I have to
stress to you that no decisions have been made, no one has been offered
the job. It's still very much in its nascent stages.

Go ahead, Martha.

Q Dana, have people turned down the job?

MS. PERINO: I am going to decline from here to talk about any
personnel actions, whether that be interviews or offers. I can tell you
no one has been offered the job.

Q You say nobody has offered the job, but people you have
approached --

MS. PERINO: No one has been offered the job.

Q -- told you they don't want it?

MS. PERINO: I have a policy that I have followed for years that I
do not talk about whether or not anyone had been interviewed, or offered
a job, or considered for a job. It's just not something that I think is
good for anybody that's involved in the process.

Q Can you talk about whether this job would be in addition to
the job that Meghan O'Sullivan is leaving? Would this be an added
position that you're thinking about?

MS. PERINO: That would be possible.

Q -- not say higher profile, but that -- but would Meghan
O'Sullivan be replaced, as well, and this person would be an addition?

MS. PERINO: That's still a little bit too hypothetical, because
there's no --

Q Why is it hypothetical? I mean, what do you talk to people
about?

MS. PERINO: Because there's no decision -- well, it could, or it
could not. Because there's been no decisions yet on how the
restructuring would be, then I can't give you a concrete answer as to
whether or not that person would replace Meghan or whether it would be
an additional person.

Q But you're looking at several possibilities, and one of them
being that there would be a person in addition to the position Meghan
O'Sullivan --

MS. PERINO: I think it's fair to say that that would be a
consideration.

Q And why do you want someone higher profile?

MS. PERINO: Well, again, I'm not saying that we want somebody. I
think that we are considering whether or not that would be a good thing
for the office at this time as we implement the policies.

We have many hundreds of -- well, tens of thousands of our military
men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a significant
commitment in the region, and we have a significant amount of work to do
at the National Security Council to make sure that the policies are
being implemented across the national security agencies, of which there
are many. And so given the importance of this matter and the priority
that the President places on it, one consideration is to place someone
of just a slightly higher profile that can help cut through bureaucracy
and make sure that these policies are being implemented to their best
possible ability.

Go ahead, Suzanne.

Q Dana, if I could follow. Representative Rahm Emanuel has put
out a statement about this, saying, "The Washington Post reports that
the White House wants to appoint a war czar to run the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but they can't find anyone to do it -- someone needs to
tell Steve Hadley that position is filled -- it's the
Commander-in-Chief, unless the decider has become the delegator." Do
you see his point?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think it's really interesting coming from
somebody who works with 217 other members of Congress who think that
they are Commanders-in-Chief. The President is the Commander-in-Chief.
He has had no trouble attracting very high caliber talent to positions
across the administration, even late in the administration. And I think
that it is a responsible thing to consider whether or not a
restructuring is needed. I think it behooves us to consider a wide
variety of opinions and to consult widely to see how we move forward, to
make sure that these policies are implemented for the benefit of our men
and women who are on the ground fighting for us, as well as the innocent
Iraqis and Afghanis who are working to make their democracies work in
the heart of the Middle East.

Q I think the point he's making, and some other Democrats, is
four years after the war, why is the White House now considering a
position to put somebody in power, in place that would be able to
coordinate between the agencies and have the power to implement the
policies?

MS. PERINO: I think that's unfair, Suzanne, because I think that
there's a lack of understanding of what Meghan O'Sullivan and Stephen
Hadley and J.D. Crouch and other members of the National Security
Council have been doing. They have been doing this work -- this idea
for a restructuring is one that comes at a time that, after six years,
when Meghan O'Sullivan has said that it's time for her to move on from
public service, that it's natural that we would consider how best to
make sure that that office is most effective. And I think that anybody
who misunderstands exactly what we are trying to do in this position is
only trying to -- I think that it might be a clever sound bite, but I
think it was quite a cheap political shot.

Q From the Democrats?

MS. PERINO: Yes.

Steve.

Q Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the bombing in
Algiers. Does this suggest that al Qaeda is resurging?

MS. PERINO: I have not heard that report. We certainly condemn
the attacks in Morocco, and we are working with the Moroccan and
Algerian authorities. We stand with them as they try to find out the
cause -- or the impetus for the attacks. I haven't heard that it's al
Qaeda. I guess it wouldn't surprise me.

Let's do Les since I missed you yesterday.

Q Thank you very much. Two questions. Rutgers University
President Richard McCormick, described the Don Imus on-air words as
"despicable, unconscionable, and deeply hurtful to the team players, the
students and their parents." And my question: Does the President of
the United States disagree with the President of Rutgers on this?

MS. PERINO: The President believes that the comments made by Don
Imus were inappropriate. He can understand why people's feelings were
hurt. He knows that Don Imus apologized and he thinks that that was the
right thing to do.

Q One-and-a-half on this one. Since the President earned a
graduate degree from Harvard, he does not believe that Harvard students
should have to pay $43,000 a year without requiring that all Harvard
faculty teach at least 20 hours a week, that vacations of three weeks,
rather than four months, does he?

MS. PERINO: I'll have to consult him and see if he's read his
alumni magazine.

Q One other. Does he, as a Harvard alum, believe that all of
the income from Harvard's $26-billion endowment should be used to reduce
tuition, or not?

MS. PERINO: I'll decline comment and let --

Q And you'll check and let me know?

MS. PERINO: Maybe. (Laughter.)

Roger, go ahead.

Q Back to the coordinator -- the fact that the administration is
considering a coordinator, or czar, or whatever it's going to be called,
and the fact that it might augment Meghan O'Sullivan's job, or maybe a
higher-profile thing, suggests that there's something broken in the
whole system. Is there something broken that you're trying to repair or
--

MS. PERINO: No, I think what's broken is trying to put the cart in
front of the horse and try to speculate on a bunch of hypotheticals that
I'm not in a position to be able to answer. As I said, the priorities
of this administration, given the war on terror and the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, while we have troops in harm's way, is priority
number one. And so if there are things that we can do to improve upon
any processes going forward, we will do that.

But I will tell you, I have not heard anybody say that the system
is broken, or that Meghan O'Sullivan did not perform with the -- to the
best of her abilities. She is somebody who is held in the highest
regard, not just by this President, but by the Iraqis and the Afghanis.
She's a wonderful colleague. She has got a tremendous intellect, and we
are really going to miss her. I think that we -- I just want to make
sure it's really clear that we're undertaking this based on it being the
right thing to do at this time, since she said she's going to be moving
on, that when you go to replace somebody of that caliber, that you want
to make sure that you're replacing her with somebody as good or better.

Q I understand that. But you used the phrase a moment ago,
somebody to cut through the bureaucracy, in addition to the spring
offensive in Afghanistan coming up. Is that part of the mix of why
we're considering this?

MS. PERINO: I think what you have to remember is that Meghan
O'Sullivan, as the Deputy National Security Advisor, and Steve Hadley's
right-hand person in leading those two reviews, those two large policy
reviews, that once that process was finished, she had decided at the end
of that, as they moved into the implementation phase, that she would be
moving on. So that's the natural time for us to consider it.

Ann.

Q What does it say about the strain in relations between the
White House and the Senate Democratic leader that the two can't even
agree on what meeting has been called next week, and whether the
Majority Leader is going to come?

MS. PERINO: Well, I'm a little bit perplexed. Yesterday
afternoon, following the President's speech, our Legislative Affairs
staff, around 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon, called with requests for the
leadership -- bipartisan, bicameral leadership -- to come the White
House next week to talk about, explicitly said, the Iraq war
supplemental. And we got confirmation from Senator Reid's office that
he would be attending. So I can't square the public comments with the
private comments, but we would hope that he would take the President up
on the invitation to come down and talk with him. We have RSVPs from
other members.

Q Is this a leadership meeting, and does it cover a broader
agenda? Senator Reid is under the impression it's just one of the
regular weekly bipartisan leadership meetings.

MS. PERINO: As I understand it, our Legislative Affairs staff was
very explicit in saying that this would be an Iraq war supplemental
meeting. But let me remind you, though, anytime members of Congress are
here and they have the ear of the President, it's not unlikely that they
would bring up other issues that are important to them.

Q And is the President willing to discuss with them -- you said
he won't negotiate, but will he discuss with them the options on the war
supplemental? They are under the impression all they will get is a
lecture from him on how he wants the supplemental --

MS. PERINO: The President invited them down to discuss how we
could get to a clean bill, because one of the things that we know to be
a fact is that they do not have the votes to override the President's
veto. We also know that it's a fact the President said that if the
bills pass in their current form that he would veto them. So, given
that the Democrats have said that they do want to fund the troops, that
they're not going to cut funds for the troops, at some point the
Democrats are going to have to come together and figure out a way to get
the President a clean bill that he can sign in order for the troops to
get the money that they need. And that is the point of the meeting.

Let me go -- let me go to Alexis, and then we'll --

Q Dana, related to that, is it the President's concern that the
longer this goes out, the greater the chances are that there might be
the votes to override his veto? Is he concerned about that?

MS. PERINO: No, I think the President's concern is based on what
the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said, which is that the financial
hardships that come from not having this money right away, on time and
without strings attached, is going to cause problems for the troops and
for their families. That's his motivation.

Q And I wanted to ask another question about Mr. Hadley or Dr.
Crouch. For those who aren't really sophisticated in understanding
exactly how the organization at NSC is set up, could you explain why,
when you talk about Iraq as being the President's number one priority,
that the two assistants to the President, Mr. Hadley and Dr. Crouch, are
not sufficient to be the coordinators for the President's number one
foreign policy?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think you have to remember that Dr. Crouch and
Mr. Hadley oversee all the world in foreign policy -- the world's events
in foreign policy, and so they have a much more global view. And you
want to make sure that you have somebody that's in charge of Iraq and
Afghanistan, that can focus on that, just like we have somebody who
focuses on Africa or Asia.

Q Well, I mean, just give us -- is there an idea that you could
explain what Meghan was doing, that would make people understand why
there's a subset of things that person needs to pay attention --

MS. PERINO: I don't know if I could give -- I could see if I can
give you specifics later. From what I know, Meghan O'Sullivan and her
team had a wide variety of responsibilities. They would make sure --
everything from doing the policy reviews for the President, as I
mentioned, those in-depth policy reviews, to talking with the Iraqis. I
know that she had many conversations with members of the government in
Iraq to talk them through things that were going on here at home. That
was one of the things that she did, which -- our actions here in
Washington, D.C. are spread around the world for people to hear, and
they might not quite understand exactly what's going on here in America,
especially when we have debates about whether or not to stay in Iraq.
And I remember her talking with them and assuring them that the
President stood firm with the Iraqis and that he was going to be there.

Everything from helping respond to members of Congress, to talking
to the Iraqis, to the nitty-gritty of getting ready for policy time for
the President -- it was a wide range in responsibilities.

Q She coordinated also with State and --

MS. PERINO: Absolutely. That's one of the things the National
Security Council does, which is coordinate with the national security
agencies. It's not just the State Department and Defense Department,
but at any given time you can be working with the Treasury Department,
Department of Energy, or other agencies -- USAID, which would be part of
State Department, but if there was a specific need there.

Paula.

Q Dana, a major oil producer today, or yesterday, joined the
bandwagon of industry leaders who are calling for a national emissions
cap on greenhouse gases. The United States, or administration is making
an argument it would not be in the economic interest to have a national
standard. Is there a disconnect here between those who would be
regulated and want regulation?

MS. PERINO: Well, I think what's fair to say is there is a lot of
discussion going on right now about climate change, and that's not a bad
thing. The President has legislation in front of Congress right now
that would halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by
the year 2010 -- that's the 20-in-10 program that he announced in the
State of the Union.

Whether or not there is a cap in trade or whether or not there is a
mandatory, economy-wide cap, or whether or not there are other
mechanisms that you can use -- what the President has said is that one
thing that we know that we have to have is we have to have a strong and
growing economy in order to have the resources, the money to pay for the
technologies that we know we're going to need in order to help solve
this problem.

In addition to that, when we talk about the economic disadvantages,
it's regarding two basic things. Right now technology does not exist in
order to strip carbon out of power plants. And that is something that
we are working towards, the Department of Energy towards that. And,
most encouragingly, the private sector is looking towards what possible
new technologies that they can create. And I know that out in Silicon
Valley they're really thinking through a lot of these different ideas.

But we also have to remember that the developing nations are going
to be emitting a lot of pollution and a lot of carbon and other
greenhouse gases, and we have to take that into consideration, because
since this is a global issue and all the emissions go up into the
atmosphere, that if you only solve one part of the problem over here,
and more emissions come up over here, you haven't solved the
environmental problem and what you've possibly done is transferred jobs
and pollution and the greenhouse gases to another part of the world.

So it's complex, but the President believes that technology is the
answer, number one. And as Congress debates other issues, we'll have to
see how that goes.

Connie.

Q Thank you. It sounds like a Les question, but it's an
important racial question, too. Does the President have any views on
the charges apparently being dropped against the Duke lacrosse players?
And does he believe something ought to be done to help these three young
players regain their lives and recoup the money that they've lost in
legal fees?

MS. PERINO: I haven't talked to him about it, but I'll decline to
comment on a legal matter.

Q But it's settled.

Q It's a social matter --

MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment on it.

Kelly, did you have one?

Q Fred Thompson, former senator and potential presidential
candidate, has disclosed that he has cancer. And there's been a lot of
high profile cancer, with Tony Snow, Elizabeth Edwards, that is
reflecting on the whole presidential race. Was the President notified
about this? Does he have any view about how the intersection of these
two things, this -- cancer is affecting the race and becoming so much
more of a public --

MS. PERINO: I haven't had a chance to talk to the President since
I saw the reports about Fred Thompson's announcement. Obviously, we
have our hearts and prayers with Fred Thompson. And, as he said, it's
treatable, and so that's encouraging.

And I did talk to Tony Snow this morning. He is really doing well.
He is so optimistic, but not only that, he has recovered almost fully
from the surgery, and he's really optimistic about his choices for
treatment -- that he's not ready to announce yet, but it sounds very
encouraging.

So I think that because you have individuals like Mr. Thompson,
Tony Snow and Elizabeth Edwards all highlighting the issue of cancer,
hopefully it will help people who are either going through it now, or
encourage them to get screenings so that they can get early treatment,
because I think that they have all been a good inspiration for us.

Mr. Lambros, go ahead.

Q Yes, Ms. Perino, according to the White House press release,
President Bush has authorized, "furnishing defense articles and defense
services" to both Montenegro and Serbia. Since is it not clear, do you
know if "furnishing" implies sale of arms, or a grant of arms to Serbia
and Montenegro?

MS. PERINO: I do not know, sir, but I'll ask the National Security
Council to get back in touch with you.

Q Thank you.

Q Dana, real quick.

MS. PERINO: Okay, Suzanne.

Q The CEO of Ford Motors was here at the White House last week,
introducing a hybrid car. He made a joke yesterday about the President
nearly blowing himself up, and that he saved his life or something. Is
there any reaction -- I mean, it was a story that the blogs took
seriously for about 24, 48 hours. Any reaction or response from the
White House? Has the President or the CEO of Ford reached out to the
President to explain himself?

MS. PERINO: No, I don't know about any sort of outreach to us.
I'll just -- the story wasn't accurate, and I'll just decline to comment
further.

Q Was there any concern at all that that was taken seriously?
Because obviously there was a lot of press --

MS. PERINO: If I was concerned about all the things that were on
the blogs every day, I wouldn't get -- I wouldn't do anything else.

Go ahead, Sarah.

Q Thank you. Dana, to follow up to the questions asked before
--

MS. PERINO: About Ford Motor Company?

Q Yes.

MS. PERINO: Okay.

Q Why not promote an active duty general to the generals of the
Army's five stars and let him run the wars, like General Eisenhower did,
and MacArthur? Can the President do that?

MS. PERINO: Sarah, I'm going to decline to comment on that. I
think that we have a good structure in place, and great personnel in
Secretary Gates.

Go ahead, in the back.

Q Thank you, Dana. New Mexico Governor Richardson has been to
North Korea. Would you tell us if there is any accomplishment toward
normalization of relationship between U.S. and North Korea?

MS. PERINO: Well, Secretary Principi and Governor Richardson have
had a trip to North Korea in which to retrieve remains of U.S. soldiers,
and that was the mission that they were on. We are pleased that they
accomplished that. And beyond that, I would just refer you to the fact
that we are continuing to work within the context of the six-party talks
and that those are having some signs of progress.